Illegal domestic spying

Abuse of state authority shakes basis of democracy

Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney used to defend Washington’s warrantless wiretapping, saying it saved numerous Americans’ lives from terrorists. The illegal surveillance scandal now gripping this country will likely make even the quibble-prone U.S. leader upset for at least three reasons.

First, the unlawful spying by some officials at the Prime Minister’s Office is not for national security but to protect administration’s security ― or its leader’s dignity. A private citizen was monitored, harassed and eventually forced to stop his business for uploading a video clip mocking President Lee Myung-bak from the Internet on his blog.

The three Grand National Party lawmakers also secretly chased by these officials had one thing in common; challenging the almighty influence of Rep. Lee Sang-deuk, a six-term GNP lawmaker and President Lee’s elder brother.

Second, the so-called Public Servants’ Ethical Support Office is designed to monitor possible corruption and other irregularities committed by appointed officials. But what these officials targeted were private citizens and elected officials belonging to the legislative branch. One can only imagine if the officials can spy on even governing party lawmakers loyal to President Lee, what it would have been like for politicians of rival factions or parties.

Third, these officials, reportedly coming from the same hometown as President Lee’s, are seldom supposed to conduct surveillance duty on citizens and legislators, which belong to the domain of state auditors or intelligence officers only under strong conviction and with court warrants.

Some questions arise inevitably: Were these irregularities due to excessive ― and voluntary ― loyalty of these officials to the chief executive? If not, who allowed them to do these illegal activities, and why? And why were they regularly reporting to a Presidential secretary at Cheong Wa Dae? By most accounts, these unwarranted acts of domestic spying were not isolated accidents but systematic activities that had been going on for an extended period and on far more people than we know.

What all this leads to is the conclusion that there are people within the governing circles with pre-modern concepts of statehood and democracy. So they seem to have tried to ``privatize” state authority, thinking that they could ``possess” this country by taking political power, and anyone opposing the core power are enemies of the state.

The ongoing scandal causes confusion among Koreans that they are re-living the military dictatorship era of decades ago, or in some tightly-controlled future society led by Big Brother. Many voters might be hoping President Lee himself is above this stinking court politics, a power struggle within the core group ― between his familial and regional power base and the rest of the governing camp.

If the President hadn’t known about this ugly development, he must sternly discipline his ``overly loyal” aides, however painful it might personally be. If the President were aware ― even most vaguely ― of this, he must start with overhauling his own concept about governance and proper communication with people.

The only silver lining of the scandal is that it came when Lee’s presidency is about to pass a turning point. If President Lee can make the most of this and move to more transparent and open-hearted governance, not just to his closest relatives and aides but to his rivals and even critics, the scandal might be a mixed blessing.

If he fails to learn a lesson from it, it will prove to be the start of his premature ``lame duck” status ― a big misfortune for the President himself and the whole nation as well.